The Army Chief’s statement on stone-pelters an obligation to troops; Any objections?-V Mahalingam-It is time we realise that a soldier’s voice is no less important than that of the people of the country.

February 21, 2017, 9:04 pm IST V Mahalingam in In Search of Propriety | India | TOI Hours after General Bipin Rawat, the Chief of the Army Staff, warned the Stone – pelters against interfering with Army’s operations and endangering soldiers’ lives, a few selected politicians with vested interests and some pseudo – intellectuals masquerading as literati managed to twist a straight forward statement to discover faults and raise a controversy. Criticism an instrument to hide failure The most disgusting comment came from the erstwhile Home Minister P Chidambaram who in a TV show called the General’s statement the “wrong approach” and the statement ‘intemperate’. He owes it to the people of the country to explain as to why knowing fully well the ‘right approach’ he failed to apply his so called ‘approach’ to solve the Kashmir problem while he was the Home Minister of the country. Did he ever even attempt to warn the local people or show any concrete action on ground to deter the militants and their supporters from anti – national activities including the waving of the Pakistani flags? What if at all has his approach achieved in the valley in the last ten years? Pray do educate us as to what was ‘intemperate’ in the Chief’s statement and how has his own ‘temperate’ statements helped bring about peace in the valley all these years? Unfortunately when soldiers lost their lives in the valley and body bags were brought back, it was apparent that the ‘temperate’ statements had failed the country. How did it matter to the powers that be, when wives lost their husbands, parents their son and children their father and that too at such a young age and forever? Did his ‘temperate’ words make any impact on the ground situation in the Valley or solve the Kashmir problem? His present utterances only confirm his long standing attitude to the soldiers. Despite periods of relative peace in the valley any number of times, what has been done or achieved in the last ten years or so? We need to introspect rather than criticising someone who is taking an approach, right or wrong. Does India need politics which provides legitimacy to anti – nationals? The Army Chief made a few specific points which were aimed at the stone – pelters who try to disrupt anti – terror operations. Are they not “over ground workers of terrorists” whether they do it willingly, for a remuneration or otherwise? What would you call those waving Daesh and Pakistan flags, the symbols of terror and violence, who seek to undermine a democratically elected government other than as ‘anti – nationals’? Should the Army chief compliment those stone-pelting youths if they tried to thwart anti-terror operations? Wake up; it is time we stopped providing legitimacy to these ‘anti – nationals’. Decency is being taken as weakness and the people of this country are being taken for a ride. Let us for once stop squandering the tax payers’ money to keep these separatists safe from the terrorists whose agenda they are championing. Till date not a single politician, separatists posing as leaders, or the so called intellectuals supposedly speaking and working to safeguard the interests of the people and the state have come out and warned the people of the harm that they will cause to themselves, their families and children by getting involved with militants or their activities. Why can’t those who move around the valley seeking votes to grab power also go to villages and tell them what is right and what is wrong? Will that not be in peoples’ interest? Since those who ought to warn people have either no sense or the moral courage to so, what is wrong in the Army Chief advising and forewarning the locals? Even after the Army Chief has spoken out, none of these so called well-wishers have considered it appropriate to advice the people but have remained mere spectators to the goings on in the valley and have only criticised the General. Or is it that they want these flash mobs to continue interfering with the Army’s operations and prevent terrorists being apprehended and brought to book? Doesn’t it suggest that these are people who are thriving on the unrest and loss of blood in one part of our country? Bipin RawatArmy Chief General Bipin Rawat These silent onlookers have no stakes in whatever happens either to the people of the valley or to the soldiers. None of their children or relatives serve in the Armed Forces and are well away from the troubled spots. How does it matter to any of them if lives are lost or the valley remains disturbed? The context to Army Chief’s comments As in a number of incidents earlier, in this case too an Army’s task force was about to launch an operation to apprehend militants holed up at Parray Mohalla of Bandipore in North Kashmir when they were confronted by a heavy stone pelting congregated mob. Alerted by the stone – throwers, the holed up militants opened fire with their AK – 47 rifles and threw hand grenades at the troops resulting in the death of three jawans including a few others. The Commanding Officer of the CRPF was also injured. Under such circumstances should the soldiers not have opened fire to disburse the mob and thus saved their comrades? Had they done that, these very spokespersons for the terrorists would have raised a din to blame the army for all the trouble in the valley. There is a context to what the Army Chief had said. Unlike some of these politicians and fake intellectuals who are accountable to none, the Chief is accountable to the soldiers and the Army that he commands. The soldiers’ willingness to go into battle hinges on their belief that the cause for which they are fighting is just and that their Chief will not launch them in to battle without making sure that their lives will not be sacrificed without making sure that they have a fair chance to win and survive in the battle. If the Army Chief fails to gain that confidence of troops, the troops will refuse to go into battle. Today a number of junior officers and men are questioning the very concept of ‘people friendly operations’ which the army has directed its units and formations to carryout in insurgency affected areas. As it stands today the fatality ratio between the militants and troops has risen up to 1:1. Troops believe that these soft operations without any reciprocal measures or understanding by the political class have put their lives in great danger. The operational setting – what are the troops expected to do? Task Force carrying out raids to apprehend terrorists consists of four components – a thinly laid cordon deployed around the area of focus, usually a village, at a distance of over 300 meters. The intention is to prevent cross fire hitting civilians inadvertently getting into or interfering with operations within the designated area as also to foil terrorists evading the dragnet. The second component consists of few soldiers deployed well away from the area of operations as stops to block terrorists, over ground workers and abettors who might have been hiding at locations away from the target area at the time of the launch of operations and may flee the area to evade detection and arrest. There are no physical barriers to stop movement of civilians from one side of the cordon to the other. The force depends on the deterrent value of the soldier with the gun for accomplishing the task. To be able maintain deterrence, the people will have to believe that the troops will fire for effect if the red line is violated. The third element is the raid party and the fourth the reserves to cater for unforeseen contingencies. Taking advantage of the ‘people friendly operations’, conscious of the fact that troops will not open fire on mobs, women and children, terror agents unleash assembled flash mobs as shields to foil the operations and distract the troops from their mission. This facilitates the escape of the holed up terrorists. Stone pelting mobs injure unsuspecting troops involved in carrying out their mission. Those in the thinly deployed ‘stops’ and ‘cordon’ risk being lynched by these mobs. The question is what is the soldier expected to do under such circumstances? Refuse to go for the operations pointing out the unjustifiable danger that he would be exposed to? Abandon the ‘cordon’, the ‘stop’ positions and the mission at hand and run for life? Get one self killed in the hands of the mobs? Fire and kill those men who defy his caution and suffer in silence, the harassment that goes on in the name of enquiry? While the dead civilians will have any number of sponsored men and women to give evidence against the soldier, who will render a supporting voice to the soldier in an enquiry? Those criticising the Army Chief need to speak up and enlighten the soldiers as to what is expected of them. Let us have no illusions – the soldier is not a cannon fodder to be used as a tool to enable traitors achieve their hidden agendas. The villagers, women and children in the game are not spontaneous supporters of the protests but are helpless citizens who follow the dictates of the militant supporters for fear of reprisals as they have no option but to live in the same village dominated by the very same over ground workers after the army leaves the venue. Incidentally, the British Government has suspended human right laws on the battle field. Speaking on the subject the British Prime Minister Teresa May said it will give British troops the ‘confidence when they go out into combat for us that they are able to do what is necessary to keep us safe’. Why don’t Indian leaders have similar sentiments for the Indian Soldier? Conclusion Let us be clear – it is not the Army which keen to stay on in the valley or in any other insurgency affected area where things have been messed up by the politicians and the administration. It has been called to do a job. Have the grace to allow them to do that. The army’s role in an insurgency is limited to bringing violence to an acceptable level and thereafter it is for the political leadership to bring about peace in the troubled area through political initiatives and intervention. The dialogue, a part of the political process cannot be held in an atmosphere of violence. Violence cannot be brought down and controlled without conducting operations and restricting the free movement of militants, their supporters, arms and other war like stores within the affected area. Periods of inactivity on the part of the security forces are utilised by the terror groups to regroup and organise themselves and where necessary to shift focus areas and change operational tactics. It is for the Government and not the military to decide if military operations are required to be conducted or not. But make no mistakes – if military operations are to be conducted it cannot be at the cost of soldiers’ lives. That entails putting in place necessary safeguards and enforcing certain ground rules and making sure that the soldiers have a fair chance to survive and accomplish their mission. That precisely is what General Rawat was trying to do when he made the statement on stone throwers. As for talks, if anyone thinks that dialogue needs to be conducted with the separatists don’t be fooled into believing that it will yield results. It has not done so in the last 25 years. Terrorism is a profit making industry for some and keeping the valley in the present state helps them and their unspoken agenda. Things will not change till such time costs are imposed and the loss to the industrialists and their coconspirators is unendurable. As of now we are only providing legitimacy to the illegitimate. The ‘people friendly operations’ degrades the deterrent value of the military. The restraining effect, the very purpose of employing the Army in counter insurgency operations is lost. A blunted army will be nothing more than a police force and will fail to prove effective at a critical moment to the detriment of the nation’s security. The Indian Army’s Chief represents 1.4 million troops – numerically much more than most of the parliamentarians and the ministers do. He may not have been voted to power by the soldiers or be sitting in the Parliament but in a democracy where the soldiers have been rendered voiceless by the Constitution and have been debarred from collective bargaining or from communicating with the press, it is he who has the onerous responsibility of sharing the soldiers’ views and problems with the Government and the people of the country. He therefore cannot be a silent dummy or a ‘yes man’. Unwilling to pay heed and criticising him without even attempting to comprehend his dilemma is nothing but showing contempt to 1.4 million soldiers. It is time we realise that a soldier’s voice is no less important than that of the people of the country.